What does everyone hate about about the Sportiva g2 sm boots?

Trying to get some details about the pros and cons of these boots. So far I've heard:

1. Stay off scree.
2. BOA laces are prone to breaking, carry repair kit.
3. Zipper/velcro not waterproof.

Hate?  Why hate?  I have had them since the day they came out (literally, got them on preorder).  I've put a lot of days on them and have nothing bad to say about them.  This will probably be my last season on this pair and I'll be purchasing another pair.

1. Stay off scree.

How are they significantly different from any other similar boot on scree?

2. BOA laces are prone to breaking, carry repair kit.

I was originally worried about this, but they have never broken.  I have heard of people who have heard of people who have had them break, but I don't really trust 3rd hand knowledge.  "Prone" is not the right word, really.  It is more that if they do indeed break, you are kinda screwed.

3. Zipper/velcro not waterproof. 

These are high altitude boots.  Aint no water in high altitude.

At this point in time, I don't know what a better alternative to the G2SM would be.  There is the Phantom 6000 and Norward 2.1.  In addition to the G2SM, I've owned the new version of the Phantom 6000 and ended up selling them.  I know a few folks who are Mammut athletes who own the Norward 2.1s, but it seems more like an "alternative option".

Chris C. wrote:In addition to the G2SM, I've owned the new version of the Phantom 6000 and ended up selling them.  

What did you prefer in the LS boots? 

Chris C. wrote: Hate?  Why hate?  I have had them since the day they came out (literally, got them on preorder).  I've put a lot of days on them and have nothing bad to say about them.  This will probably be my last season on this pair and I'll be purchasing another pair.

How are they significantly different from any other similar boot on scree?

I was originally worried about this, but they have never broken.  I have heard of people who have heard of people who have had them break, but I don't really trust 3rd hand knowledge.  "Prone" is not the right word, really.  It is more that if they do indeed break, you are kinda screwed.

These are high altitude boots.  Aint no water in high altitude.

At this point in time, I don't know what a better alternative to the G2SM would be.  There is the Phantom 6000 and Norward 2.1.  In addition to the G2SM, I've owned the new version of the Phantom 6000 and ended up selling them.  I know a few folks who are Mammut athletes who own the Norward 2.1s, but it seems more like an "alternative option".

Thanks for the input Chris! I've heard mostly good stuff about the g2's. Those were the only 3 'bad' things I heard about them. Some which I consider stupid. I believe the water issue were for people using them under 4,000m peaks probably on approaches with rivers or something.

jdejace wrote:

What did you prefer in the LS boots? 

1. The G2SM's supergaiter zipper is significantly less finicky than the 6000.  I don't understand the benefit of the Scarpa wrap around zipper.  If there is a benefit, it is negated by how easily the zipper sticks.  

2. The Boa system on the G2SM is also pretty great for adjustments on the fly.  For example, it's pretty common that I will leave the boots looser during a slog up to an ice face or something, and then tighten them up really fast for the technical section of the climb.  The 6000 has a really cool lacing system, but it isn't as fast as the G2SM.  That combined with the finicky supergaiter means that you probably just shouldnt adjust the 6000 on the fly unless you have to.

3. The liner of the 6000 is *slightlyyyy* more finicky than the G2SM.  That is really just me being picky.  But I hate messing with stuff after waking up at 12am in a cold tent.  

The 6000 is a slightly lighter boot (1oz per pair), so it does have a weight edge.  However, I think the G2SM's ease of use beats it out.

Sterling Falconer wrote:

Thanks for the input Chris! I've heard mostly good stuff about the g2's. Those were the only 3 'bad' things I heard about them. Some which I consider stupid. I believe the water issue were for people using them under 4,000m peaks probably on approaches with rivers or something.

Yeah, it seems that a lot of people buying them would probably be better suited to the G5.  A little more waterproofed, no inner boot to deal with, still quite warm, harder rubber, and all around a more practical sub 5500m boot. 

Ideally, everybody owns every single available boot on the market.   

The boa is quite sturdy, but you should carry a repair kit on expeditions.   The kit weighs about what a new pair of shoelaces weighs.  The advantages of it far outweigh the negatives.  I can adjust, on the fly, while on a moving rope team in a pinch.....

Chris C. wrote:

Yeah, it seems that a lot of people buying them would probably be better suited to the G5.  A little more waterproofed, no inner boot to deal with, still quite warm, harder rubber, and all around a more practical sub 5500m boot. 

Ideally, everybody owns every single available boot on the market.   

I thought about selling my Mont Blac Pros for the G5 for sub 4,000m peaks but I think the MBP will suffice.

Just buy the boots.

I agree with Chris C. I have used G2 SM on multiple 5000+ meter peaks, peaks in the Cascades, Canadian Rockies, and climbed up to WI4+ in them. I have brought them on multi-week expeditions, with no issues with the Boa laces. They are very warm, comfortable, and light.
I don't see why they are getting a bad rep.

Nick Sweeney wrote: Just buy the boots.

Bought them last week :D I was just curious if anyone were having any issues with them but seems like no one really is :)

The way they look. Do I need to be a walking billboard?

Alex Kowalcyk wrote: The way they look. Do I need to be a walking billboard?

Hahahah! I agree, I don't know why La Sportiva boots have to be so ridiculously colorful. I'm looking forward to when styles are back to being more muted. Luckily fashion is not a major concern when you have not showered in 2 weeks and are pooping into a plastic tub. 

C Brooks wrote: I agree with Chris C. I have used G2 SM on multiple 5000+ meter peaks, peaks in the Cascades, Canadian Rockies, and climbed up to WI4+ in them. I have brought them on multi-week expeditions, with no issues with the Boa laces. They are very warm, comfortable, and light.
I don't see why they are getting a bad rep.

Now you have me debating if I should sell my Mont Blac Pros if you can do peaks in the cascades with the G2's. My feet do run cold too.

Sterling Falconer wrote:

Now you have me debating if I should sell my Mont Blac Pros if you can do peaks in the cascades with the G2's. My feet do run cold too.

No fabric boot (supergaiter single or modern double) will be as durable as a majority leather boot with a full lugged vibram sole (like the MBP). If you're doing any trail hiking or rock climbing without crampons, you'll wear out a fabric boot quickly. No reason you couldn't own both though and use whichever is more appropriate for the outing.

Sterling Falconer wrote:

Now you have me debating if I should sell my Mont Blac Pros if you can do peaks in the cascades with the G2's. My feet do run cold too.

I use mine in the Cascades and even when waterfall ice climbing up to WI5. They're my only pair of full-shank boots. That said, hold onto your lighter boots, because the G2s are serious overkill for almost everything in the Cascades. I was happy to have them when I did North ridge of Baker early season, though.

Chris C. wrote: Hate?  Why hate?  I have had them since the day they came out (literally, got them on preorder).  I've put a lot of days on them and have nothing bad to say about them.  This will probably be my last season on this pair and I'll be purchasing another pair.

How are they significantly different from any other similar boot on scree?

I was originally worried about this, but they have never broken.  I have heard of people who have heard of people who have had them break, but I don't really trust 3rd hand knowledge.  "Prone" is not the right word, really.  It is more that if they do indeed break, you are kinda screwed.

These are high altitude boots.  Aint no water in high altitude.

At this point in time, I don't know what a better alternative to the G2SM would be.  There is the Phantom 6000 and Norward 2.1.  In addition to the G2SM, I've owned the new version of the Phantom 6000 and ended up selling them.  I know a few folks who are Mammut athletes who own the Norward 2.1s, but it seems more like an "alternative option".

That’s one reason I haven’t bought them-living in ak you still climb at low altitudes and many, many of the climbs you access are on rivers and you often end up boot deep in water.   Nepal’s have been great for most trips but not warm enough for  days below 0.   

akafaultline wrote:

That’s one reason I haven’t bought them-living in ak you still climb at low altitudes and many, many of the climbs you access are on rivers and you often end up boot deep in water.   Nepal’s have been great for most trips but not warm enough for  days below 0.   

I've never climbed in AK, so I can't say for certain for your exact situation.  I own the Nepal Cube GTX, G5, G2SM, and had the Batura 2.0 before the G5.  The Nepal is easily the least waterproof of them all.  If you are fine with their waterproofing, you will probably be psyched with the other ones.  

Chris C. wrote:

1. The G2SM's supergaiter zipper is significantly less finicky than the 6000.  I don't understand the benefit of the Scarpa wrap around zipper.  If there is a benefit, it is negated by how easily the zipper sticks.  

2. The Boa system on the G2SM is also pretty great for adjustments on the fly.  For example, it's pretty common that I will leave the boots looser during a slog up to an ice face or something, and then tighten them up really fast for the technical section of the climb.  The 6000 has a really cool lacing system, but it isn't as fast as the G2SM.  That combined with the finicky supergaiter means that you probably just shouldnt adjust the 6000 on the fly unless you have to.

3. The liner of the 6000 is *slightlyyyy* more finicky than the G2SM.  That is really just me being picky.  But I hate messing with stuff after waking up at 12am in a cold tent.  

The 6000 is a slightly lighter boot (1oz per pair), so it does have a weight edge.  However, I think the G2SM's ease of use beats it out.

I have a molded Baruntse liner. Makes the P6k perfect IMO. Quick to tighten, lighter than the factory liner too.

Chris C. wrote:

I've never climbed in AK, so I can't say for certain for your exact situation.  I own the Nepal Cube GTX, G5, G2SM, and had the Batura 2.0 before the G5.  The Nepal is easily the least waterproof of them all.  If you are fine with their waterproofing, you will probably be psyched with the other ones.  

Don’t know how that’s really possible-that the g2sm is more waterproof than the Nepal.  So I asked the local climbing shop and they agreed based upon their experiences. Ive had the baturas and sold them.  I’ve stood in rivers for several minutes right up to the cuff with the Nepal’s and would never do that with most double boots.   The g2sm doesn’t even have waterproof zippers and the inner boot doesn’t appear to have a membrane at all.  The Nepal is one piece and sealed to nearly the top.  If I had to pick one to break through into a river it definitely would not be the g2sm. I’m definitely going to buy the g2sm’s but ideally won’t use them when accessing routes via questionable rivers.  

There is also the Millet Shiva (and the Olympus Mons Evo equivalent, Everest Summit GTX).

Don't forget that how each boot fits plays into your decision. I would have been miserable in a boot that was too narrow.